Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-08


when frat Issued these coupons we're ncco-
liable instruments for the payment of money.
and we're yrtWd fHeis genuine. Now 10 In % he
TtCvi1ed that they hall be JripiG ffcie spuri-
Gus. al q fiall not he received 'ill a1irmauvelg
proved 10 some court 10 he genuine When igst
issued tho coupon itself was a whole self sIfi
cient contract, ayable IN money and rereivs-
lle Tor taxes. NOW 20 made worthless ior the
purpose Of po3 3mcnt oi taxes withv1t its ~
company tnC bond. which itself L. not receivable
for sxcs; and when added % thi- legislation
The sct u ----, lsSi which fOrb.ls the on
, ode oi proof Of an engraved bond known 70
litcents when the obligor e. perversc. 10 must
appear thaf The value Of q tgX-Teceirahle col
gon is almost entirely destroyed. If the sub
stance q ihcs. three acts Of Assembly had
been printed On he hacks of coupons VII 70
iIst iffucd 30 must 10 apparent they mover
w,ulc have found place ia tne money mar
Lets Of The world
Ilare uohtsitatiou in saying, in view cf th'
decisions of The supreme Court iu the coupon
cases Wh'ct hGyc come before b. that this SUB
ffQUent legislation "a in line aith the former
fncris condemned hy that court 20 destroy The
value q tie ta1-rscSiyable coupon in the hands
oi its Irceeut holder. aud IL IN defiance of ono
ci he thrcc departments Of tho Government
thc judicinl department, 20 Tho Judgments ~
Which, 10 the supreme Law of the laat, eyciV
one ia bound by The Constitution % submit l.
s bus Just 10 say that ~ this hearing no one ks.
attempted 20 defend the purpose of those acts
or io maintain their coustituuonaliI a. q
whole.
has JrBrsDrcIIoS.
Croufiug the uncoustifut'oralitv Of the Acis
~ fescmbly tbc ecoud question j.. Has the
Circuit Court lu' soicfi0n 20 prevent tho OIL
ccre of the state ON putting thcm in .or.c
against these defoldlutsg llis j. dCuioi tc
cause Of section 20 n thr Revised StatIta.
which provides "lhe Wril of inlun tiOu shah
not De- granted by any court OF thc nitci ~'niC.
10 stay proceedings in my court ~ estate except
in cases whore such mlunctions may oe au-
! la fHl
hHnkupicy."
TO this it iss sunlciont snswor TO eay that 90
far as the steam boat company case il CON
ccIUcd procc cdiugs In the State courts nrc a.
yet only threatened, ana cvon had they been
attempted II is equally sufficient enswcr tO aay
hat there can Doe no proceedings la anV court,
state ar Fodera', under an unconstitutional
statute. The whole matter would be cOrdia nm
,'dtcs and The Judgment Of the court no pro-
lection % tho Of,iccr attempting % enforce n.
so far, then, as ths steam boat company ca-e
is concerned, We have state officers sn1sav0r-
irg or threatening 20 enforce 81 uuconstitu-
tiCnal statute against II, although IL hss paid
It's taxes IN coupons. which The supreme Court
he's decided 20 30 valid payment This
bring. the ease precisely within tie pIincipl
aid down In Osborus re. Bank, q Wheaton. 'jS.
In that case The bill was nled against the Audi
tor ~ ohio 20 restrain him from proceeding
Rfainft tie hank under an act Of the Legi'ls-
ture Of hat STATE, and tho sole que'tiOu then
presented was, according 10 the record In that
cnse, Was the Ilainhn endtei TO relief I'm
equity and 10 tho writ Of injuuctiOns and the
court decided that n WAS.
The act ~ ihe Legislature Of Ohio wa there
characterized az an attempt to drive the bank
out Of the state. II is not too much 10 Say that
the attempt here is 20 totally destroy the COM
plsiuauts' property in coupons aud 30 mulct II
ia costs for rendering that wi ich the supreme
Court has Folemnly decided tbs defendants were
bound 70 receive in payment according 10 the
Stnte's contract
Tie remedy granted in Osborne rs The bank
wac tie remedy 10y injunction. and Mr.. Justice
Bradley I'm tie dissenting opinion in PoinjeX-
ter ana Groeuhow. declares such 90 10 tho re-
WCGy ~ the citizen when threatened Wi,h an
unconstitutional proceeding. 10 10 preyen-
tVc remedy 90 stay tho progress of approach
ing injury. and in accordance with = long lilo
d decisions 20 Tie like effect. Mr. Fled. iu
iis late work On Federal Courts. says: m
stale law is in conflict with the Con.tilu-
uon ~ tle Unit'd States. AMI State O1icsr Is
about o. execute 10. THIS UOI!d he q proprr caso
fer t'e exercise ~ the original iugislictill Of
G circuit count to restrain him.
CoOrER vs. NIEYE.
We come next 20 consider the socon cAso 10
fore TIE court--James j.. Cooper - - e. -. bor-
ION Nnryc q dl,-1glirl differs from thqf 90 the
teamhcat company, I'm that the c0mrlainal's
are nonresident aliens. So far, therefore. a.
ihe parties to the suit are concerned this court
is given jurisdiction by the htatute. and the
only objection ~ the exercise Of &C. beside
cowplainHuts have DO such interest I'm tho con-
troyersy or suit a. g. snttle them o. relief in
equity in TINS court.
What is that Interest," Tho bill alleges that
thc coinIiainaut- nre Joint owners 81 SlW0Jl
worth Of tie coupons 90 the stare receivable
for iuIcs; that they purchased them in Opcu
market Tor taIc 90 tA" tax payers Oi virginia
and ave already sold moro thal 10000 worth
n tlem 90 such tax payers, many oi whom AMI
20 much larger amount than $1,000 have ten-
GcrCd these coupons n payment of their taxes
That the cOmp,eiu1nts are joint ana several
guaraniors 20 the purchasers If these cou-
and that II tic acts of the Assembly above re-
fcrrcd to are enforced against tax-payar5 az is
threatened In This case End has already been
done in The tiri Oud fourth cases b. tleir
contract win the purchasers, who have sp
rendered the coupons for tsIcs, thsy viii Aayo
20 ray all tie cts!a, loses, ana damages SUI |
ferCd Ly The taxpayers N the suite brought
under these acts. And they further Rllcg0 that
lhe coupon unissued In their hands VIII 10
rendered worthless hy the proceedings acain-t
the tax.pnyers which have already purrrR-sl
and tcndered u uart of thsm. Aud they alege
hat the costs alone. which - guaran,Ors they |
would have 90 pay. would amount 10 greatly
moro tlnn sum necessary TO give lurisii;-
tiOu 20 this Court
II g. Iny opinion that this is a suf.icsu. pecu-
MARY interest 20 give the complainau,s stand |
ing iu the Circuit Court. They srs the holders
~ certain chooses I'm action, negotiable. valua- !
blc. marx ctaDle. and useful i'm ths payment ~ |
faICe. Every pCrsOn e. whom the complain !
suts scil them, Aud VINO us0s them Tor tho only |
purpose for which they are sold, is require br |
igW 90 DC sued for 40 doing, aud 10y law 10 is !
made impossible 20 defend the suit All the !
purcL ascrs from the cOmplRiuauts whom srci |
me entitled 90 cali Oh them TO defend such suits !
as mhy Dee brought, aud tbs expense Of 80 DO |
ing iS greater than tho value Of the coupons.
1E,rc i- TO question or doubt as % whether |
or not tie defendant State officers viii proceed |
.o enforce thcs6 acts, ani create the loss o. |
.ompanants' Tho at is imperative an 1 the |
officers are bound % obey IL till 10 ls declared |
in tho cases at bar, whore |
suits ave already been brought against pur- |
,haseIs with guarantee in writing from COM !
plainants. there can be little doubt that the |
amount ia coutrOvcrs ye1ceels She tuHsdiction- |
That The remedy by injunction TO prevent !
Of suits and stop a grieyOus wrong |
attempted by Stale officers, without any au- |
.hOrity, isthc proper remedy.
This case differs from that of Mary0 md Par
sons Here there Is TO attempt 10 make a |
state officer, by mandatory inj Junction. receive |
'OupCus from aCOupon-holder who was not |
aX-payer. ns was attempted tnen. This is an |
4pYlicaliOnfor injunction O. prevent the state |
lf1icers from enforcing an unconstitutional law !
against tax payers, who have or may pur hase !
'oupous for the payment Of taxes from the |
.omplaiLrnis. ana thus render those coupons |
hey have sold and those they hold equally |
forthloss.
DESTROYS THEIR VALUE.
So far az the coupons iu the hands Of the com |
all ants unsold are c0ncerui, 10 appears tom |
nat Whcn'thc State announces 60 all tax payers
IS DO alone can or viii purchase them, that IL |
hey do 80 the state will refuse TO receive them |
or taxes, but will bring suit against every tax |
payer who offers them, il violates every |
litigation of the contract and utterly |
destroys the value OF compliments pro |
lerty. II is idle 10 say that the |
ought 10 wait till each small |
aX-Iayer Is sued before they seek 90 enloiu the |
1nicer The very object Of the writ Of inlunc- |
ion, - we said before, Is TO prevent wrong aud !
4 multiplicity Of suits equal 10 the number Of |
sold by them. And II Is equally Idle 10 |
,ey that the complsinants have a remedy al |
aw, for even II that were 80, which Is not the |
ruth In fact, % forbid the equity court from "a
,uirg the writ Of injunction there must not |
My be a remedy az law but thar remedy must |
be equally a. prompt, certain, efficient, aud |
General Gs tho remedy In equity
In the case Of Allen rs the Baltimore and |
lhio railroad, which presented he question |
yheiher this Court has the power 20 restrain an
nicer Of Virginia Ia the execution Of an un-
constitutional statute the supreme Court. III |
nited States 3i6. sums up this whole matter |
Where the rights In jeopardy" says the Court.
are those Of private cluzens, aud are OF those
.lasscs which the Constitution OF the United |